IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Humans have destroyed the ecosystems - so I am going to blame humans - I am not going to blame the sharks.

sushil_yadavIndustrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Sushil I hear your love of the earth. May I point out to you that the emotion that you may have is causing a misdirection of focus. Emotion is the problem, it is not good. Emotional pain is behind all the cruelty, all the greed, and all the unhappiness in the world. To get emotional about anything is to destroy the natural love in the body.

I acknowledge you for bringing the attention to the destruction that is so evident. The problem is we just get used to it, we get more numb. In my life I address the cause - emotional pain - and acknowledge my love of the earth as often as I am reminded.

With regard to the destruction and pollution of the natural world do you see that I as Man have done this. When I see this I will start to dismantle the cause of the world in my self as I can blame no one else for the state of affairs.

__________________‘If God exists, God can be experienced, but only by you.’Barry Long

I acknowledge the above B.Long as a great source of inspiration to me.

Should we effectively reduce population and even curb consumerism, both of which, I agree, would greatly reduce our negative impact on the world, we will still be an industrial civilization. Now, your big screed is that "industrial society destroys mind and environment." So, are you saying that the industrial civilization itself is at fault or merely that the way technology is being used is the problem?

So far, you haven't really answered the question of what specifically you see as a cure. So I ask again, do you want humans to give up any or all of the following: the Internet, personal computers, television, telephones, electricity, the use of natural gas to heat homes, heat water and cook meals, automobiles, buses, trains, air transport, shipping?

Or do you envision the solution as involving greater efficiency, less waste, curbs on population, less consumerism, restoration of devastated habitats , switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, etc.; but retaining high technology?

What about the life of millions of other species that have been decimated by man? What about the life of ecosystems that have been destroyed by humans? What about the life of forests that have been cut down by humans? What about the life of fish that have vanished from oceans? What about the life of underground water that has been pumped out? What about the life of clean rivers, lakes and oceans that have been poisoned by thousands of toxic chemicals, oil spills and millions of tonnes of plastic? What about the life of Arctic ice and glaciers that have melted? Billions of tonnes of metal waste, plastic waste, electronic waste, chemical waste on the planet.

The issue is not which life is better - the issue is which life is sustainable. The issue is destruction of ecosystems.

The argument of Iraq & Afghanistan is another thread and something probably neither of us want to discuss here (too political). Every chart or graph I've seen about global life expectancy, infant mortality rates, poverty, overall human development index paints a better picture than what you're describing. These changes take time and dedication from people like yourself. You do have a point. It appears humans have improved the life of other humans while neglecting eco-systems, and we have become aware of this. The "green" movement is one such marketing tool that heightens our awareness of such issues you're concerned with. Changing to completely sustainable lifestyle would be a shock to all humans and I don't think this is even possible. Nothing last forever. Even the most powerful celestial bodies in our solar system have life spans. The reward for existence is it's eventual demise.

By the way, all 7 billion humans living at a US level would be inventing things, as a whole, all that much faster than now, including solving any problems that come up.

10 billion, even more so. The statements made even by some skeptics here, that there are too many people, are not based on any rational observation, but hearken back to the bad old days of famine and lack of freedom and so on.

I look forward to 100 billion people on Earth -- as long as they are free.

By the way, all 7 billion humans living at a US level would be inventing things, as a whole, all that much faster than now, including solving any problems that come up.

10 billion, even more so. The statements made even by some skeptics here, that there are too many people, are not based on any rational observation, but hearken back to the bad old days of famine and lack of freedom and so on.

I look forward to 100 billion people on Earth -- as long as they are free.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I have no desire to live in a world crammed with that many people. I frankly love having empty spaces to go to in order to periodically escape the noise and intrusiveness of heavily populated areas.

However, I see no reason why we can't have many areas of pristine wilderness and still support a sophisticated, high-tech civilization. In fact, as technologies mature, they do more with less. using both less energy and less material in the process, thus making less of an impact on the environment.

One example of this is computer technology. Back in the 1950s I remember these huge mainframe computers, such as Univac, taking up a whole room. Now we can do what Univac did, using a personal computer. I used to have a Mackintosh Performa. When I was switching my files from that to my i-mac, my wife helped out, using a flash drive for the transfer. She held up this little thing and said, "You know, this flash drive has more memory than your Performa."

I still don't know what Sushil wants us to give up to escape what he sees as the ills of industrial civilization. So I don't know what he expects us to do to gain the utopian simple life he seems to envision.

The spaces are deliberate [ to provide a gap between thinking for the overthinking species].

sushil_yadav

Are you advocating under-thinking?

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

You know, just skimming through the OP's posts here, he hasn't provided any link to any evidence?

Originally Posted by dafydd

No,just the usual woo and self-delusion.

The experiments I have proposed are primarily meant for those people who understand only the language of science. We don't need experiments to understand that our present lifestyle is destroying our Minds and Environment - the evidence is everywhere - left, right and center. The craze and fetish for science and scientific proof has mainly existed for the last 50 - 100 years. People have lived on this planet for thousands of years without needing scientific proof to understand something. It is Science and Technology that created the consumerist Industrial Society which has led to the destruction of Mind and Nature/ Environment. Who needs more science or more scientific proof. Science is not the solution - Science is the problem.

Some people demand proof of everything. They won't accept anything without proof. How do people accept their father as their father? Where is the proof?
Scientific proof comes from DNA testing. How many people have got the DNA test conducted?

Two things that have destroyed Environment are - Overpopulation and Overconsumerism. Science and Technology is responsible for both these problems. World population was less than 1 billion in the year 1800. Nature had its way of controlling population through disease and death caused by bacteria and virus. When man made medicines/ antibiotics he created disaster - population increased very rapidly. In the absence of "Industrial Agriculture" the feeding capacity of soil would have kept population under control. If Industrial Revolution had not happened, environmental destruction due to production of consumer goods would not exist. In the absence of Science, Technology and "Industrial Revolution" we would not be facing the two problems that have caused destruction of ecosystems - overpopulation and overconsumerism.

Humans are incapable of making solutions. Humans have always created problems. All solutions of Man have actually been problems in disguise - they have led to bigger and greater problems. The quest for a solution is the biggest problem in itself.

So how do you want me to tell you about the evils of Industrial Society - through pigeon mail?

Why, yes, of course. You don't want to be have your mind destroyed by evil industrial inventions like the internet, now do you?

Now, pigeon mail, on the other hand -- ah! No evil industrialization, no need to rely on soul-destroying science and engineering like the internet does, no hurting the environment, close to nature, gives you time to think between letters, unlike the mind-destroying rush of industrial society's instant communications...

Two things that have destroyed Environment are - Overpopulation and Overconsumerism. Science and Technology is responsible for both these problems. World population was less than 1 billion in the year 1800. Nature had its way of controlling population through disease and death caused by bacteria and virus.

You forgot famine.

But go right ahead. Give a personal example. Refuse to have your own life extended by modern medicine. Do not get vaccinated. Do not use antibiotics. Do not use modern surgery, antiseptics, or other procedures. Oh, and go live as a farmer in India or China, or bare subsistence level, so as you can live like most people lived before science.

If you get sick and die from from working in the fields all day, from not having modern medicine, from harvest failure making you starve, well, just think of it as doing your bit against underpopulation and overconsumerism. You can't consume if you're dead, can you?

But of course, who am I kidding. You don't want to stave or die from disease or live on bare subsistence level yourself. You want other people -- by the billions -- to starve and die from disease and live on bare subsistence level so that you, continuing to use all the comforts of western society, will feel better about yourself.

How heartless of the cruel, industrial, soul-destroying world to deny you this simple wish.

The experiments I have proposed are primarily meant for those people who understand only the language of science. We don't need experiments to understand that our present lifestyle is destroying our Minds and Environment - the evidence is everywhere - left, right and center. The craze and fetish for science and scientific proof has mainly existed for the last 50 - 100 years. People have lived on this planet for thousands of years without needing scientific proof to understand something. It is Science and Technology that created the consumerist Industrial Society which has led to the destruction of Mind and Nature/ Environment. Who needs more science or more scientific proof. Science is not the solution - Science is the problem.

Some people demand proof of everything. They won't accept anything without proof. How do people accept their father as their father? Where is the proof?
Scientific proof comes from DNA testing. How many people have got the DNA test conducted?

Two things that have destroyed Environment are - Overpopulation and Overconsumerism. Science and Technology is responsible for both these problems. World population was less than 1 billion in the year 1800. Nature had its way of controlling population through disease and death caused by bacteria and virus. When man made medicines/ antibiotics he created disaster - population increased very rapidly. In the absence of "Industrial Agriculture" the feeding capacity of soil would have kept population under control. If Industrial Revolution had not happened, environmental destruction due to production of consumer goods would not exist. In the absence of Science, Technology and "Industrial Revolution" we would not be facing the two problems that have caused destruction of ecosystems - overpopulation and overconsumerism.

Humans are incapable of making solutions. Humans have always created problems. All solutions of Man have actually been problems in disguise - they have led to bigger and greater problems. The quest for a solution is the biggest problem in itself.

sushil_yadavIndustrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

I suspect it would be a waste of time arguing with you about the value of science, but I will remind you once again of the irony of your making an assault on science, technology and industrial civilization via the Internet.

So that brings us once again to what you see as a solution. Are we to abandon such things as anesthesia, aseptic surgical technique, vaccines and antibiotics. Should I not have had quintuple coronary bypass surgery back in 1999? Of course, had I not had it, we wouldn't be having this conversation - just as we wouldn't be having it if there were no Internet.

If we are to give up automobiles, trucks trains, air transport and ships powered by something other than the wind, and depend on horses and sailing ships, how do you propose we make the transition? Also, what are we to do with all the people we now feed thanks to high tech agriculture? Should we simply let all these people die? Or are you advocating a pandemic to take us all out?

If you see man as the problem, it would seem that a universal genocide would be the logical solution. In the hopes that you really don't want to wipe us all out, I ask - yet again - what specific solution(s) you propose to the problem of industrial civilization?

Also, once again, I will remind you that pre-industrial civilization was responsible for widespread deforestation, the desertification of the Sahara and widespread extinctions. What answer do you have to that?

Wait a moment, somewhere back in the link I asked Sushil how much s/he wanted humanity to go back and what part of the population should be, let us say... removed, to achieve this and how they would be chosen. At which point I clearly remember the awnser that that was not the intent at all of the post. Yet now it seems that pre-1800 is the number sushil is going for, along with the 1 billion number.
Right, having this concrete.. how would you go about removing 6 out of every 7 humans? Provided you can convince everyone its for the best? And how would you distribute said humans? At the time most of western europe had already lost its self-sufficiency as the raw materials for clothes came from abroad so we could farm.
Oh and to tend the fields of cotton it was necessary to resort to slavery as otherwise it wouldnt be economically viable. Are you advocating returing to that?
And please bear in mind that without current machinery large portions of the world are quite incapable of sustaining farming, so how would you distribute the remaining population? Evenly and let even more die? Or as land allows, thus creating concentrations in those area's of the world that actually were densly populated at the time, causing the need for mass transport to keep everyone fed?

Also, I do not advocate you abstain from using medicine and the like, but do you own a tv? a dvd player? do you every buy chocolate or coffee or tea? In fact, drink anything BUT water?

Wait a moment, somewhere back in the link I asked Sushil how much s/he wanted humanity to go back and what part of the population should be, let us say... removed, to achieve this and how they would be chosen. At which point I clearly remember the awnser that that was not the intent at all of the post. Yet now it seems that pre-1800 is the number sushil is going for, along with the 1 billion number.
Right, having this concrete.. how would you go about removing 6 out of every 7 humans? Provided you can convince everyone its for the best? And how would you distribute said humans? At the time most of western europe had already lost its self-sufficiency as the raw materials for clothes came from abroad so we could farm.
Oh and to tend the fields of cotton it was necessary to resort to slavery as otherwise it wouldnt be economically viable. Are you advocating returing to that?
And please bear in mind that without current machinery large portions of the world are quite incapable of sustaining farming, so how would you distribute the remaining population? Evenly and let even more die? Or as land allows, thus creating concentrations in those area's of the world that actually were densly populated at the time, causing the need for mass transport to keep everyone fed?

Also, I do not advocate you abstain from using medicine and the like, but do you own a tv? a dvd player? do you every buy chocolate or coffee or tea? In fact, drink anything BUT water?

Excellent questions. Sushil really hasn't dealt with:

1) How we go about getting from here to there (your 6 out of every 7 humans eliminated question).

2) How far back he wants us to go, i.e. what technologies we can keep, if any.

3) The often wretched conditions of pre-industrial societies. Your point about cotton requiring slavery - even with the cotton gin - is well taken. Cotton was so labor intensive before industry that it was a luxury item. One reason daily baths were necessary in ancient Rome is that the togas they were wearing were made of wool.

4) The environmental damage done be pre-industrial civilizations, such as the desertification of the Sahara, extinctions of many large faunal assemblages due to over-hunting and salinization of once fertile soils by over-irrigation.

AS LONG AS CITIES EXIST WE CAN NEITHER SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT
NOR THE MIND.

To save the (remaining) environment from destruction man will have to
return back to physical work (smaller communities).

To save the mind from mental diseases man will have to return back to
physical work (smaller communities).

Environment can be saved only if we stop production of most (more than
99%) of the consumer goods we are making today.

Sushil added that we only have 20 years left before the doom of us all. Thus, though he has failed to answer my questions on this thread, he has, unfortunately, confirmed my worst suspicions on his own site. An end to cities and curtailment of more than 99% of all consumer goods, all done in 20 years time requires nothing less than the extermination of most of the human race. He isn't honest enough to own up to such a requirement, but that's what he, in fact, is aiming for.

"I am trying to get the following experiment conducted in a psychophysiology/ bio-chemistry laboratory."

This is the experiment involving showing film at various speeds. He then goes on to say how the results will turn out and to base his theory on the assumed results. The reasoning here is far from sound.

Having found that Sushil Yadav is from India, I googled "environmental destruction in India" and found the following on Wikipedia:

The rapid growing population and economic development are leading to the environmental degradation in India because of the uncontrolled growth of urbanization and industrialization, expansion and massive intensification of agriculture, and the destruction of forests.
Major environmental issues are Forest and Agricultural land degradation, Resource depletion (water, mineral, forest, sand, rocks etc.,), Environmental degradation, Public Health, Loss of Biodiversity,Loss of resilience in ecosystems, Livelihood Security for the Poor[1].
It is estimated that the country’s population will increase to about 1.26 billion by the year 2016. The projected population indicates that India will be the first most populous country in the world and China will be ranking second in the year 2050[2]. India having 18% of the world's population on 2.4% of world's total area has greatly increased the pressure on its natural resources. Water shortages, soil exhaustion and erosion, deforestation, air and water pollution afflicts many areas.
India's water supply and sanitation issues are related to many environmental issues.

So I now have a better understanding of where he's coming from. Yes, uncontrolled industrialization certainly leads to environmental destruction, just as does an uncontrolled birth rate.

Unfortunately, pre-industrial societies haven't been all that hot in controlling their birthrates. I wonder if curtailing 99+% of all consumer goods would also include birth control pills and devices. And I must point out again that very low-tech societies have accomplished gross environmental destruction quite effectively.

Darat,
The evidence of destruction caused by consumerist society - the Military Industrial Complex - is everywhere around us - left, right and center. Environmentalists can see the evidence everywhere. Humans have decimated all other species. Animals, Trees, Air, Water and Land everthing is getting destroyed. Oceans, rivers ,mountains and lakes - every component of the ecosystem is getting destroyed moment by moment. There is an arsenal of 80,000 nuclear bombs which can destroy the planet several times over.

Umm... There are actually more trees in the world than there was 100 years ago, or so I've heard. Don't get me wrong, we are destroying the environment to some degree, but please prove to me that there are fewer trees than there were 100 years ago... show me the study. I'll admit I don't remember where I've heard that, so I could be wrong.

Also note that our industrial complex is actually much less polluting than it was, say, 50 years ago on a per production basis. We actually are making an effort. It may be too little too late, but still... would you have us try to live with stone age standards? A large portion of the world would starve if we made the attempt.

Lastly, don't make such broad generalizations. If you want your admittedly artistic batch of assertions to have the ring of truth, be specific and verifiable in your material.

The destruction of ecosystems in Industruial Society is millions of times greater than that of any pre-industrial society.

Generalization. Wrong on principle alone. Industrial society has more control over what it does over a large area than pre industrial society does... and it is more precisely aware of what it is doing. Therefore, the cause of repairing the ecosystems, etc. does not suggest moving to a post-industrial society, but making elements of industrial society more beneficial to the environment (and not merely less destructive).

Are these the only things you want out of life? Food, clothing, shelter... nothing else? To live in fact, but not in essence? What about all that emotion garbage you posted at first? Do you know what inspires emotion in me? Music would be one, for sure... Industrual music... recorded and amplified electronically.... electric guitars, etc... but also classical symphanies... played on my computer, not live, usually. I exercise my emotions at times that I would otherwise be bored to tears... so much for industrial society supressing emotion.

LOL! All these things did not exist in pre - industrial society. Do you know what they did make? The making of the Pyramids, for example, could not have been good for ecosystems. Nor has the mining of Iron been good for life either... Also, pre industrial society used more wood than we do today in their homes and buildings... not overall, but on a per person basis.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

Which pre-industrial society produced billions of tonnes of solid, liquid and gaseous waste - billions of tonnes of metal waste, plastic waste, chemical waste, electronic waste.......which has turned the entire planet into a land-fill/ garbage dump?

Well, but they did empty their bedpans in the street... as well as threw their trash pretty much wherever they wanted. A walk down the street in Rome at its heighth would show you just how sanitary and non-wasteful they really were. They lived in their own filth by our standards. Note that I do actually admit that we make more trash than we should... and think that the things we make should be less disposable, but deny pre-industrial society as the bizarre utopia that you seem to envision.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

Which pre-industrial society killed billions of acres of soil by covering it with cement and concrete?

Billions? Nope, can't think of any. A large amount in a limited area? Egypt... see the pyramids (well, stone, actually, but same thing).

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

Which pre-industrial society decimated millions of species and destroyed all ecosystems"

First name an industrial society that destroyed all ecosystems.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

Which pre-industrial society cut down forests all over the world?

Umm.... all of them?

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

Which pre-industrial society pumped out most of the underground water?

In a given area? I would assume quite a few eventually had wells go dry. Pretty sure of it, actually. Though the area around Las Vegas is a bit overpopulated for the water there... Kansas (industrial society) isn't.

Originally Posted by sushil_yadav

Which pre-industrial society decimated fish in the oceans and threw millions of tonnes of plastic and other trash into the oceans?

Thank you for at least answering one of my questions. Forgive me for only posting a truncated version of you post. However, I wanted to focus on a few errors you've made.

First of all, Lions, among other large predators used to have a range that extended through the middle east and well into Europe. They were extinct in all those areas well before the time of the Roman Empire because of over-hunting. The auroch or European bison was also hunted nearly to extinction by the end of the middle ages. In Roman times, a Rhodesian type fauna, including giraffes, elephants and lions, exited in an arid grassland that is now the Sahara Desert. The destruction of this grassland, and with it it's large animal fauna, was the result of overgrazing sheep by Arab nomads in the early middle ages. I would hardly call an area the size of the Sahara a local system.

The forests of North America were cut down by pioneers to create farmlands, just as forested areas in Europe were. Forested areas in the mideast (and Europe) were cut down for building materials, ship building, iron smelting and to clear land for agriculture. Yes, modern destruction is greater - if it is uncontrolled. The destruction you are seeing in India is the result of uncontrolled growth. In the United States trees are replanted to be harvested later. Thus, forests are replaced.

There are other things that can be done, however. Much wood goes to create paper. This results in a great deal of pollution of waters by sodium bisulfite, the main solvent used to separate the two major components of wood, cellulose and lignin. Many other plants could be used to make paper - such as hemp and kenaf - which only have cellulose, thus obviating the need to use sodium bisulfite. One barrier to using hemp instead of wood as a source of paper is societal. Even though the type of hemp that makes good paper, rope and even clothing, produces inferior marijuana, since our government has decided it's the demon weed, it can't be used.

Now would you care to answer how we are to reduce the world population drastically - to about an eighth of what it is now - in 20 years?

What would you say to a society powered by photovoltaic cells, wind generators, small-scale hydroelectric power, geothermal energy and biomass; utilizing co-generation and switching, when practical, from old style generators to fuel cells?

Let's add to that systems of non-coercive population control with an aim to population reduction, intense recycling, reforestation programs, programs to reintroduce into the wild those species mainly kept alive by captive breeding programs, and a less materialistic philosophy.

Would that be acceptable to you?

If this isn't good enough for you, and you still say we have to abandon all industry, plus all cities and reduce our population to about an eighth of what it is now over a period of 20 years; please explain how we are to go about doing all that.

As far as this applies to animals, this has not been the case in American Society. Older slower American society had very poor treatment of animals compared to the fast paced society of today.

This may be true for horses, dogs, cats, and other pets but it is certainly not true for pigs, chickens, or cows. And I would say that the effects on wildlife have been decidedly mixed but that your position is not the one my money would be on…

When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.

I find this extremely insulting towards farmers. Do you seriously suggest that they don't think? Or that they are somehow spending less time thinking than non-farmers?

A person who spends 1 hour digging a hole is going to spend the same amount of time thinking as a person who spends 1 hour designing a bridge, or a new type of tank. Care to guess how much?

I will bet that Sushil will not be volunteering to be one of the 87.5%.

I have that same feeling. However, having passed my 66th. birthday, I also have the feeling he'd volunteer me to me to be one of those to be sent to the abattoir. I suspect that, in Sushil's eyes many of us are useless eaters.

I cannot seriously see any way to get rid of 87.5% of the earth's population in 20 years that does not involve either a great deal of violence on the human level or some stupendous catastrophe, i.e. violence on the natural level.

I wonder what the effect on the environment would be of having to dispose of 5,956,562,500 (if I've worked that out right) human bodies in the space of 20 years? Are we talking cremation, burial, what?

__________________"The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline

I wonder what the effect on the environment would be of having to dispose of 5,956,562,500 (if I've worked that out right) human bodies in the space of 20 years? Are we talking cremation, burial, what?

Maybe I'd better get into the undertaking business.Can I put my tender in Sushil?